Skip to main content
Log in

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation & Proportionality: A Public Law Principle Adopted into the Private Law of Employment

Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the possible adoption of the public law principles of ‘legitimate expectation’ and the standard of ‘proportionality’ as the appropriate and cohesive legal approach to voluntary promises that are normally found in ostensibly non-contractual documents. The article argues that, allowing a further development into the principle of legitimate expectation, which has already been adopted in employment relations as a further development of the implied duty of trust and confidence, could enhance the courts’ approach to the issue of voluntary promises and avoid the unsatisfactory contractual solution that appears to produce inconsistent results. Giving particular consideration to the courts’ application of the proportionality test, thereby recognises an employee’s hierarchy of interests, when seeking to justify an employer’s decision, this article assesses how the influence of the proportionality standard can, and should, offer a more satisfactory solution when applied to resolving disputes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Compare e.g. Malone and others v British Airways [2010] EWCA Civ 1225, with IBM United Kingdon Holdings Ltd v Dalgleish [2014] EWHC 980 (Ch).

  2. French v Barclays Bank [1998] IRLR 646; and IBM (n 1 above).

  3. Malone (n 1 above).

  4. See Douglas Brodie ‘How Relational Is the Employment Contract?’ [2011] ILJ 232; Mathew Boyle ‘The Relational Principle of Trust and Confidence’ [2007] OJLS 633.

  5. French (n 2 above).

  6. David Cabrelli ‘Rules and Standards in the Workplace: a Perspective From the Field of Labour Law’ [2011] Legal Studies 21.

  7. Other jurisdictions have already adopted this principle (explicitly or implicitly) into private employment law; e.g. in Canada see Pnina Alon-Shenker and Guy Davidov ‘Applying the Principle of Proportionality in Employment and Labour Law Contexts’ [2013] 59:2 McGill Law Journal 375. See also Guy Davidov, “The Principle of Proportionality in Labor Law and Its Impact on Precarious Workers’ [2012] Comp Lab L & Pol’y J 63; in the US see Barry Hough and Ann Spowart-Taylor, ‘Employment Policies: A Lesson from America’ [2001] 30 Comm. L. World Rev 297.

  8. Kearney v. Whitehaven Colliery Co [1893], 1 QBD 700.

  9. Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 512. Cf. Thomas v Thomas [1842] 2 QB 851 with French (op. cit).

  10. See Barry Hough and Ann Spowart-Taylor, ‘The Doctrine of Consideration: Dead or Alive in English Employment Contracts?’ [2001] Journal of Contract Law 193.

  11. [1990] 1 All ER 512, [1990] 2 WLR 1153.

  12. [1993] IRLR 383.

  13. [2000] IRLR 319 CA.

  14. [2013] EWCA Civ 394.

  15. See James Penner, “Voluntary Obligations and the Scope of the Law of Contract" [1996] 2 Legal Theory 325; and Grant Gilmore, The Death of Contract. Gilmore, (Columbus, State University Press, 1974).

  16. Attrill (n 14 above) 360; Brogden v Investec Bank Plc [2014] IRLR 924; O'Hare v Coutts & Co [2016] EWHC 2224 (QB); and New Media Holding Company Llc v Ivan Kuznetsov [2016] EWHC.

  17. See e.g. Kaur v MG Rover Group Limited [2005] IRLR 40; National Coal Board v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] IRLR 439.

  18. Cf.; Grant v South-West Trains Ltd [1998] IRLR 188; National Coal (n 17 above)o; with Malone (n 1 above).

  19. Kaur (n 17 above).

  20. French (n 2 above).

  21. [1991] IRLR 286.

  22. (n 17 above).

  23. Compare Kaur (n 17 above), with Malone (n 1 above). In Keeley v Fosroc International Ltd it was held that a provision on enhanced redundancy payments was apt for incorporation into the employee's contract of employment.

  24. See further Collins Hugh, ‘Market Power, Bureaucratic Power, and the Contract of Employment’ [1986] ILJ 1.

  25. (n 1 above).

  26. ibid, 62.

  27. ibid.

  28. Roseanne Russell Malone and others v British Airways plc: Protection of Managerial Prerogative?” [2011] ILJ 207.

  29. ibid 212.

  30. ibid.

  31. Such approach was rejected by the recent Court of Appeal decision in Attrill (n 14 above).

  32. French (n 2 above); IBM (n1 above); and Bradbury v British Broadcasting Corporation [2015] EWHC 1368 (Ch).

  33. Grant (n 18 above).

  34. See above discussion.

  35. Malone (n 1 above).

  36. See e.g. National Coal (n17 above); Kaur (n 17 above); Grant (n18 above); and Malone (n1 above).

  37. Malone (n1 above).

  38. See Birmingham CC v Wetherill [2007] IRLR 781; Albion Automotive Ltd v Walker [2002] EWCA Civ 946; Allen v TRW Systems Ltd [2013] IRLR 699; McAlinden v CSC Computer Science Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 75 (Feb); Garratt v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] IRLR 591; Wetherill v Birmingham City Council [2007] IRLR 781; and French (n2 above).

  39. French (n2 above); IBM (n1 above); and Hameed v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation [2010] EWHC 2009.

  40. Harry Woolf, De Smith's Judicial Review, (7th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 2013) [12-001]. See further discussion on the overriding principles below.

  41. R v IRC Ex p. MFK Underwriting Agencies Ltd, [1990] 1 WLR 1545, 1570 (Per Bingham LJ).

  42. R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment Ex p. Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115.

  43. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Zeqiri [2002] UKHL 3.

  44. Grant (n18 above). However, recent developments in employment law have shown readiness by English courts to accept that legitimate expectation may create entitlement. See further discussion below.

  45. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Ahmed [1999] Imm AR 22, For further argument on this point see J.Watson, ‘Clarity and Ambiguity: A New Approach to the Test of Legitimacy in the Law of Legitimate Expectations’ [2010] LS 633.

  46. Compare IBM (n1 above) with Brogden v Investec Bank plc [2014] IRLR 924.

  47. [1985] A.C. 374, 408–409.

  48. Whilst the court found that expectation is found upon the employer's promise, it was held that national security overrides any legitimate expectation in this case. This indicates that the principle of legitimate expectation can be overridden in public law when appropriate justification can be presented.

  49. GCHQ case, (n47 above) 401–403, (per Lord Fraser).

  50. E.g. Preston v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1985] AC 835.

  51. E.g. R v North and East Devon HA Ex p. Coughlan [2001] QB 213, discussed below.

  52. E.g. R v Jockey Club Ex p. RAM Racecourses Ltd [1993] All ER 225.

  53. R (on the Application of BAPIO Action Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1139, [39].

  54. Ibid.

  55. French (n2 above).

  56. IBM (n1 above). See also Albion Automotive Ltd v Walker [2002] EWCA Civ 946 where the employer's conduct and practices have created a legitimate expectation by the employee that the promised term would be enforceable. cf. Quinn v Calder [1996] IRLR 126; and Duke v Reliance Systems [1982] IRLR 347.

  57. Ford Motor Co Ltd v Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers [1969] 2 QB 303.

  58. Kaur (n 17 above) 43 (per Keene LJ).

  59. Grant (n 18 above) 189.

  60. National Coal (n 17 above).

  61. Brogden; and Bradbury v BBC [2015] EWHC 1368 (Ch), [2015] PLR 457. A trend of this approach can also be understood from the court’s decision in Bateman v Asda Stores [2010] IRLR 370 which dealt with unilateral revocation under express power. See also Wandsworth London Borough Council v D'Silva [1998] IRLR 193.

  62. [2003] All ER (D) 55.

  63. Cf. R (on the application of Beale) v Camden LBC [2004] EWHC 6 with R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Asif Mahmood Khan [1984] 1 WLR 1337.

  64. [2013] EWCA Civ 394.

  65. In this case the Court of Appeal was concerned with the enforceability of the employer’s announcement made to its workforce that there would be a guaranteed minimum bonus pool. The court held that such an announcement was capable of creating entitlement since the employer's announcement 'was in clear and unequivocal' language and it was communicated and circulated to the employees. at [135].

  66. (n 18 above).

  67. R v North and East Devon HA Ex p. Coughlan [2001] QB 213.

  68. ibid.

  69. ibid.

  70. For critical analysis on the principle of Wednesbury, see Jowell and A. Lester, Beyond Wednesbury: Substantive Principles of Administrative Law [1987] PL 358.

  71. Coughlan (n67 above) 57.

  72. ibid [57].

  73. In, e.g. Clark v Novacold [1998] IRLR 420, [40], Burton J stated that “My conclusion is that the right test is one of irrationality or perversity (of which caprice or capriciousness would be a good example) i.e. that no reasonable employer would have exercised his discretion in this way”. This formulation mirrors the Wednesbury test that has been expressly converged with the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence and which is rooted in the private law of employment. See also Paturel v DB Services (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 3659 [2015] EWHC 3659 (QB); and Bradbury v British Broadcasting Corporation [2015] EWHC 1368 (Ch).

  74. For further analysis on the issue see C. Forsyth, ‘Legitimate Expectations Revisited’ [2011] JR 429; and S Schonberg and P Craig, ‘Substantive Legitimate Expectations after Coughlan’ [2000] PL 684.

  75. Coughlan (n67 above), 58.

  76. See Sales and K. Steyn, ‘Legitimate Expectations in English Public Law: An Analysis’ [2004] PL 564; I. Steele, ‘Substantive Legitimate Expectations: Striking the Right Balance?’ [2005].

  77. This approach mirrors the recent High Court’s finding in IBM (n1 above) discussed below.

  78. Paturel v DB Services (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 3659 [2015] EWHC 3659 (QB); and Bradbury v British Broadcasting Corporation [2015] EWHC 1368 (Ch). Conversely, in IBM (n1 above), where the manner of changing a pension plan gave rise to a breach of the duty of trust notwithstanding that the change had been validly introduced into the main plan and were not for an improper purpose.

  79. [2008] EWCA Civ 755.

  80. ibid, [26]–[52].

  81. For more analyses on the public law intervention or impact upon the private law see e.g. Paul Davies and Mark Freedland, The Impact of Public Law on Labour Law, 1972–1997’ [1997] ILJ 311; John Laws, ‘Public Law and Employment Law: Abuse of Power’ [1997] PL 455; and Gillian S Morris and Sandra Fredman ‘Is There a Public Private Labour Law Divide?’ [1992] Comp Lab LJ 115.

  82. Clark (n73 above).

  83. P. Reynolds, ‘Legitimate Expectations and the Protection of Trust in Public Officials’ [2011] PL330; M. Elliott, ‘British Jobs for British Bodies: Legitimate Expectations and Interdepartmental Decision-making’ [2008] CLJ 453.

  84. French (n2 above). Similarly see IBM (n1 above).

  85. [1998] AC 20.

  86. Douglas Brodie, “Mutual Trust and the Values of the Employment Contract” [2001] ILJ 84.

  87. e.g. Transco plc v O’Brien [2002] EWCA Civ 379.

  88. e.g. Clark (n73 above).

  89. ibid. see also Hameed (n39 above).

  90. (n2 above).

  91. ibid, 651.

  92. ibid 648.

  93. R. v Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods Ex p. Hamble Fisheries (Offshore) Ltd [1995] 2 All ER 714.

  94. Birmingham CC v Wetherill [2007] IRLR 781.

  95. ibid.

  96. ibid 34, (Chadwick LJ).

  97. [2002] 1 WLR 685.

  98. ibid [37] and [41–42].

  99. [1996] IRLR 126.

  100. [2002] EWCA Civ 946.

  101. ibid, per Chadwicj at Para 34.

  102. IBM (n1 above).

  103. ibid 468.

  104. ibid 468.

  105. ibid 454.

  106. ibid 457.

  107. ibid 458.

  108. Imperial Group Pension Trust Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 589.

  109. IBM (n1 above) 471.

  110. ibid [471], emphasis added.

  111. ibid [445].

  112. ibid [475].

  113. See more recently Brogden v Investec Bank Plc [2014] IRLR 924; Bradbury v British Broadcasting Corporation [2015] EWHC 1368 (Ch); and UC Rusal Alumina Jamaica Limited v Miller (Jamaica)38 [2014] UKPC 39, PC, where it was accepted that an employer’s voluntary promise may give rise to legitimate expectation which must be respected; conduct which disappoints a reasonable expectation may amount to a breach of the duty of trust and confidence.

  114. The US Supreme Courts of Michigan adopted a similar approach. See e.g Bankey v. Storer Broad. Co. (In re Certified Question), 443 N.W.2d 112, 113 (Mich. 1989). See further Barry Hough and Ann Spowart-Taylor, ‘Employment policies: a lesson from America’ [2001] 30 Comm. L. World Rev 297.

  115. Niazi (n 79 above).

  116. R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Ruddock [1987] 1 WLR 1482, 1497 (Taylor LJ).

  117. [2001] 1 WLR 864.

  118. IBM (n1 above).

  119. Coughlan (n67 above) 57.

  120. IBM (n1 above), 446.

  121. [2005] EWCA Civ 1363.

  122. See Tom Hickman, ‘The Substance and Structure of Proportionality’ [2008] PL 694.

  123. See A. Baker, ‘Proportionality and Employment Discrimination in the UK’ [2008] ILJ 305; and Cabrelli (n6 above).

  124. [2001] UKHL 2623.

  125. ibid [27]. His Lordship referred to the differences in the following terms: ‘First, the doctrine of proportionality may require the reviewing court to assess the balance which the decision maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational or reasonable decisions. Secondly, the proportionality test may go further than the traditional grounds of review inasmuch as it may require attention to be directed to the relative weight accorded to interests and considerations’. ibid [27].

  126. For more analysis on the range of reasonable responses standard see A.C.L. Davies ‘Judicial Self-Restraint in Labour Law’ [2009] ILJ 278. See also H Collins and M Freedland, ‘Finding the right direction for the 'industrial jury'. Haddon v Van den Bergh Foods Ltd/Midland Bank plc v Madden’ [2000] ILJ 288(Note);.

  127. Cabrelli (n6 above) 38–39.

  128. [1983] ICR 17.

  129. e.g. Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2004] ICR 187. See further H. Collins, 'The Protection of Civil Liberties in the Workplace’ (2006) 69 MLR 619; and H Collins and V Mantouvalou, ‘Private Life and Dismissal’ (2009) 38 ILJ 133.

  130. E.g. Hampson v Department of Education and Science [1989] ICR 179, 191. For detailed analysis, see Baker, (op. cit).

  131. Equality Act 2010 (s.15 and s.19). See e.g. Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (a partnership) [2012] UKSC 16.

  132. Cabrelli (n6 above) 25.

  133. [2005] EWCA Civ 846, [2005] IRLR 726.

  134. [2001] UKHL 2623.

  135. ibid, para 12.

  136. [2013] UKSC 39.

  137. ibid para [70–71].

  138. ibid.

  139. See e.g. MacCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries plc [2008] ICR 1334, EAT; Loxley v BAE Systems Land Systems (Munitions & Ordnance) Ltd [2008] ICR 1348, EAT. Conversely, see Rolls-Royce plc v Unite [2009] EWCA Civ 387, [2010] 1 WLR 318; Lockwood v Department for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1195, [2014] 1 All ER 250.

  140. See e.g. West Yorkshire Police Authority [2012] IRLR 601; Hardy & Hansons plc v Lax [2005] IRLR 726; Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College [2001] IRLR 364.

  141. IMB (n1 above), 446.

  142. R (BAPIO Action Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 199 (Admin) [59] (per Stanley Burnton); Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625, 702–703 (per Lord Bridge); R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] AC 531, 560 (per Lord Mustill).

  143. Bank Mellat v HM Treasury No 2, [2013] UKSC 39, (per Lord Reed), [75–76].

  144. ibid, [75].

  145. [1989] ICR 179.

  146. ibid, 191. See also Case 170/84 Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz [1986] ECR 1607 (ECJ).

  147. [1999] 1 WLR 1465.

  148. ibid, 1475.

  149. [2012] UKSC 15, [2012] 3 All ER 1287.

  150. The Supreme Court held that a requirement for employees to have a degree in order to be promoted was indirectly age discriminatory. In Hornfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB25, C-141/11, [2013] All ER (EC) 593, it was held by the ECJ that the existence of a retirement pension payable from a particular age could be a factor in justifying the dismissal of an employee at that age.

  151. [2014] All ER (D) 262 (Jul) EAT, UKEAT/0434/13.

  152. Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (a partnership) [2012] UKSC 16, [2012] 3 All ER 1301.

  153. ET/1100275/07.

  154. Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2014] IRLR 748, EAT.

  155. Malik (n85 above) 38 (per Lord Nicholls).

  156. ibid, Lord Steyn at 65.

  157. Coughlan (n67 above).

  158. Malone (n1 above).

  159. Hameed (n39 above).

  160. ibid.

  161. Similarly, in some cases involving discrimination (e.g. West Yorkshire Police Authority [2012] IRLR 601; Hardy & Hansons plc v Lax [2005] IRLR 726; Allonby (n140 above) it was accepted that business needs and real necessity to cutting cost can, in some circumstances, justify the employers’ treatment. However, in Allonby (n140 above) it was held that employer’s necessity could not be argued before exploring the extent to which costs savings could have been achieved through another, less discriminatory, approach.

  162. See e.g. Tome Hickman, ‘Proportionality: Comparative Law Lessons’, [2007] JR. 31; and Davies (n126 above).

  163. See e.g. Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1987] AC 224; and Allonby (n140 above).

  164. Allonby (n140 above).

  165. [2010] UKPC 32.

  166. ibid [43].

  167. (n39 above).

  168. Bank (n143 above).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muayad Kamal Hattab.

Additional information

I would like to thank professor Barry Hough and Mr James Hand for their insightful comments on drafts of this and related articles. I would also like to thank my wife for her endless support and encouragement during this process.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hattab, M.K. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation & Proportionality: A Public Law Principle Adopted into the Private Law of Employment. Liverpool Law Rev 39, 239–264 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-018-9218-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-018-9218-x

Keywords

Navigation